1. Petitioner has sought writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 5-4-1994 passed by respondent no. 1 in revision petition No. 17/1992 along with recommendations dated 31-12-1991 made by Additional Commissioner, Kashmir, in revision petitioner No. 574 of 1992 dated 25-2-1993, whereby mutation order No. 648 dated 31-12-1991 relating to land measuring 15 kanals 8 marlas falling under survey No. 169 and 137 village Onagam, passed by Naib Tehsildar in favour of petitioner Ms. Fata came to be set aside. It is necessary to notice brief facts of the case herein.

2. It appears that Mst. Khatji was Khananishin daughter of Fateh Malla and accordingly mutation of inheritance/succession came to be passed in her favour. She died leaving behind Ghulam Hassan son respondent no. 4 and petitioner as daughter. Mutation of inheritance/succession came to be passed in favour of Ghulam Hassan, two shares and one share in favour of Mst. Fata. It appears that Mst. Fata had filed civil suit no. 20/Numbri on 7-5-1975 against her brother Ghulam Hassan Malla -- respondent no. 4. He filed written statement and there-after had chosen to remain absent and accordingly it appears that ex parte proceedings were drawn against him and suit came to be decreed in ex parte wherein Munsiff Bandipora held that plaintiff is entitled to half out of the legacy of Khatji falling under Khewat No. 17 and survey Nos. 137, 169 measuring 15 kanals 8 marlas at Unagam, Bandipora and accordingly decree sheet came to be prepared.

3. It appears that mutation order No. 648 dated 13-12-1991 came to be passed in terms of the decree passed by Munsiff Bandipora, and accordingly entries have been made in the revenue record, indicating petitioner and respondent no. 4 entitled to half share each out of 15 kanlas 8 marlas out of the legacy of Mst. Khatji. Photostat copy of the said mutation is on the file. In column No. 12 of the said mutation order, it is indicated that Munsiff Bandipora in File no. 20 dated 13-12-1975 had passed a decree, which in terms of Collector SDM Sopore was received by the mutating authority. In column No. 14, the Patwari had made a report that in terms of the directions of the said Collector and as per decree sheet, necessary entries were required to be made and accordingly mutation came to be passed.. Thus the mutation in question came to be passed by Revenue officer Naib Tehsildar in terms of the judgement and decree passed by the civil court read with directions issued by the collector. Feeling aggrieved of mutation order 648, respondent no. 4 filed a revision petition No. 534/1992 before Additional Commissioner who allowed the same vide order dated 31-12-1991 with the recommendations to the Financial Commissioner to set aside the mutation order. Accordingly Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 5-4-1994 accepted the recommendations and set aside the mutation order.

4. The moot point for consideration is whether impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner merits to be quashed. The answer to this question is in affirmative for the following reasons:

5. It is beaten law of the land that mutation does not create/confer any right. It is only for fiscal purposes in order to collect land revenue. Mutation does not confer any title and is not conclusive proof of the title. It is always subject to the decision of a civil court. All the entries made in the revenue record are rebuttable in terms of section 31 of the Land Revenue Act. But an order/decree passed by a civil court, whether after contest or in ex parte, is binding upon the revenue officers/courts. The revenue officers/courts are under a legal obligation to implement the court orders/decrees in terms of para 103 of the Standing Order 23-A of the Land Revenue Act, 1996. It is profitable to reproduce said provision of law hereunder:

"Mutations by order of court.--All the above classes of mutations may include mutations by order of the Court or by order of competent authority.

All such cases should be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document